2013 jan3 howard griswold conference call

7/29/2019 2013 Jan3 Howard Griswold Conference Call.

1/15

Howard Griswold Conference CallThursday, January 3, 2013Partial

Howard Griswold Conference calls:conf call (talkshoe) 724-444-7444 95099# 1#

(non-talkshoe members must use the 1# after the pin number)Thursdays at 8 p.m., Eastern Time.Talkshoe mutes the phone lines

********************************************http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/audioPop.jsp?episodeId=661654&cmd=apop

**********************************

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=95099&episodeId=665319&cmd=hrepi

**************************

Howard's link for Thursday:http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=95099&episodeId=665319&cmd=hrepi

Hosted by: Gemini Research GroupPhone Number: (724) 444-7444Call ID: 95099

Howard is the Guest Featured Speaker on Saturday at 6 p.m., Eastern Time at:

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=99043&cmd=tcHosted by: :Mighty-Mo;Phone Number: (724) 444-7444Call ID: 99043

Rod Class AIB call on Talkshoe, the pin number is 48361 at nine oclock PM, Tues &Fri (Eastern Time). Thats Americas Independent Bureau, AIB on Talkshoe.

**************************

Howard is listed on Angela's at :http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Guest-Speaker-Pages-Info.html

http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Talkshoes.html****************************

Howard Griswold talks about contracts and the application of the law on the KMA Club.*****************************

http://geminiinvestmentsresearchgroup.wordpress.com/forms


2/15

***************************http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8IanYOTLI8

******************************

Note: there is a hydrate water call 8 pm, Eastern Mondays, 218-844-3388 966771#Howards home number: 302-875-2653 (between 9:30, a.m, and 7:00, p.m.)

Check out: www.escapeharrassment.comwww.escape-tickets-IRS-court.org

All correspondence to:Gemini Investment Research Group, POB 398, Delmar, Del. 19940

(do not address mail to Howard Griswold since Howard has not taken up residence inthat mailbox and since hes on good terms with his wife he isnt likely to in theforeseeable future.)

Donations are accepted.

"All" Howard's and GEMINI RESEARCH's information through the years, hasbeen gathered, combined and collated into 3 "Home-Study Courses" and

"Information packages" listed atwww.peoples-rights.com "Mail Order" DONATIONSand/or Toll-Free 1-877-544-4718 (24 Hours F.A.Q. line)Dave DiReamer can be reached at: [email protected]

Peoples-rights has a new book available from The Informer:Just Who Really Owns the United States, the International Monetary Fund, Federal

Reserve, World Bank, Your House, Your Car, Everythingthe Myth and the Reality.Hell take $45 for the book to help with ads, but $40 would be ok which includes

shipping($35 barebones minimum)

www.peoples-rights.com c/o 1624 Savannah Road, Lewes, Delaware 19958********************

I am not a public servant {officer or employee} and any claim to the contrary must

be proved by payroll records and my alleged public servant {officer} title and sworn

under penalty of perjury with full commercial liability for the person who swears to

it.

Im not an officer or agent or employee of the government. I am not resident within

the government and any claim to the contrary must be proved by payroll records.Prove that Im being paid by the government to be a government employee. If you

cant then your law doesnt apply to me.

Government has all the right in the world to make laws and rules regulating itself.
http://www.escapeharrassment.com/http://www.escape-tickets-irs-court.org/http://www.peoples-rights.com/mailto:[email protected]://www.peoples-rights.com/http://www.escapeharrassment.com/http://www.escape-tickets-irs-court.org/http://www.peoples-rights.com/mailto:[email protected]://www.peoples-rights.com/


3/15

When they impose any of these rules and regulations beyond government upon any

of us {private} theyre breaching their fiduciary duty {as public officers and trustees

of government}. All employees of government are in a trustee position. The courts

have said this emphatically

Public means governmentprivate means non-government.

Your acceptance of anything that government offers you at any level in any way,

shape or form is a consent to cooperate with them and to put yourself under their

authority and control.

Governments have all the authority, rights and duties to make all the laws necessary

to regulate themselves. Their law, rules, regulations, codes and so-called statutes do

not apply to the people outside of government.

****************

The scam that has been used is this lawyer reference to resident. You are a resident

of the State of Blank. They will always say that. They will go so far as to put it inwriting in the complaints or motions to the courts that the defendants, the plaintiff

or any other party is a resident of the State of Blank. In order to get the individual

under the jurisdiction of the courtthey use this languagethis is a presumption

that is created which must be rebutted with rebuttable evidence to prevent them

from proceeding against you. Now, this is going to really upset lawyers and judges

because if you learn how to do this, and its not hard, but if you learn how to do this

and you take an affidavit into court with a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6),

they fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, thats Rule 12(b)(6)

because the complaint is made against a person who is not a resident of the State.

Accompany that with an affidavit signed and sworn to under penalty of perjury and

witnessed by a notary public that states the same thing, I am not a resident of the

State of Blank because I do not work for the State of Blank. I am not employed in

any way, shape or form. I am not an officer of the State of Blank. The presumption

that I am is erroneous and must be corrected on the record. Simple enough, isnt

it? Motion to dismiss this claim under Rule 12(b)(6) because the claim fails to state a

claim upon which relief can be granted against a person who is not a resident of the

State of Blank. End of motion. Between the two, the motion and the affidavit, the

court must rule and it must rule that you are not the person that the complaint can

be lodged against. The case must be dismissed. When they dont then you want to

start looking up this Code of Judicial Ethics. Theyre not following the law.

********************

If they create the presumption and you rebut it and then they come back at you

with, well you do have a drivers license, you say, well, if I do its also erroneous.

Dont let them trick you back into admitting that youre within the state because if

you have a drivers license its within the states jurisdiction.

***********************

There is no government left. The government has ceased to function in its normal

position that it was in under the Constitution. Everything has been farmed out to


4/15

privately owned corporations to do the government work. So Social Security is

actually a private insurance company. Its not government. Its doing it for

government but its there for anybody to do business with it. So, in reality social

security is not a benefit or a privilege from government but theyll try to tell you it

is. All you got to do is do a little bit of leg work to find where its listed as a business

on Dunn and Bradstreet and present it to them that, look, this is a private company.Its in business to make money. This is not government.

*********************************If you look at most statutes thats what they say and all persons only applies to all

persons in the agency that they give it to unless it specifically says, all persons who

have a license to sell alcohol or all persons who operate a motor vehicle or all

persons who have a license to sell tobacco products. It has to be specific. It cant just

say all persons and when it does it hasnt been properly assigned to the agency for

implementation. So what the agencies do is they sue in their own name. For

instance, the IRS makes a complaint against you under United States v. You or The

United States of America v. You, IRS, Department of the Treasury complaining that

you didnt pay taxes. Well, what they are doing is acting as an assignee of anauthority to collect taxes but where in the statutes were they assigned this authority

to take you to court, to bring claims against you? Its not there.

**********************************

This is all important to understand that in most cases the actual action is being

made against you by an assigned person. Either the agency has been assigned or has

not been assigned. The police department is acting like they are the assignee but by

law have not been assigned to do the functions that theyre doing. There is no

statutory law that they can bring themselves within a provision of in order to

execute the assignment of action that theyre doing, an action on a negotiable

instrument of any kind is an action on a note or on a chosen action.

*******************************

Every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.

The rule requires you to objectan objection for ratification of commencement of

the action by or joinder or substitution of the real party in interest and such

ratification, joinder or substitution shall have the same effect as if the action had been

commenced in the name of the real party in interest. See the trickery of this kind of

stuff that lawyers put together? As long as you dont object we can do this with

assignment and get away with it and theyre doing it and theyre getting away with

it because we dont know enough to object.

**********************************

It is a dishonest act of enforcing a law upon a private individual that government

has no right, no power, no authority whatsoever to enforce upon the private

individual. That is breach of their fiduciary duty with no stupid questions asked.

When you file a breach of fiduciary duty case you are actually filing in equity. Leave

out all statutory references even though that example that we send around came out

of Colorado forms and it refers to a Colorado statutory representation that does put

it in equity but it isnt necessary to quote any statutory reference in order to open

the court of equity which is the Article 3 courts


5/15

(unless youre a teacher or government worker or have contracted with the

government with full disclosure, etc whereby youre not private anymore and youre

resident within the government.)

You got to be party to government to enjoy governments benefits, privileges and

opportunities.

*********************The executive branch of government is only enforcing the legislation for the benefitof protecting the government and not necessarily doing what theyre supposed to do

to protect us. The one that is the most guilty of not following the law is the judges. It

comes from the canon of ethics for judicial conduct. Canon #2, very important, the

canon says: a judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of

the judges activities. Subsection A,Promoting Public Confidence. You know

anybody whos competent in the courts? I dont. Nobody believes the courts are

honest, correct and truthful and fairnot even most of the lawyers.

********************

This defendant states that he is without knowledge sufficient to form a belief as tothe correctness of the statement of the claim of the plaintiffs and he neither admitsnor denies the allegations concerning the claims of the plaintiffs but demands the

plaintiffs strictly prove their claim.************************************

Failing to answer is devastatingits a total loss. Failing to answer and back the

answer up with an affidavit denying what they claim amounts to a total loss. A vague

or ambiguous complaint is remedied by a request for a more definite statement.

That will put things off for a little while until you get a decent statement. You must

object to whatever they finally state by affidavit.

************************************Now, another rule that I found to be interesting Rule 11. Rule 11, its called signing

of pleadings but its got a very interesting statement in it that I think clarifies

something I bought up a week or two ago and that is I have been finding that

lawyers are not making a notice of appearance and putting it in the docket record of

the case and I thought sure they were supposed to because I read parts of the

dictionary definition to you about the appearance of an attorney and the duty of the

court recorder to put it in the docket. The docket is the list of actions that are done

within a court action. The complaint itself, the answer to the complaint, the motion

to dismiss, all those different functions that go on within a complaint, notices that

are written into it, theyre all docketed in this sheet called the docking sheet or a

docket sheet depending upon what court and what name they have for it.

*************************************We need to object every time an attorney goes into court and the docket sheet shows

that they have not entered their appearance on the docket sheet with an official

entry that everything that theyre doing is a sham pleading and that they should be

sanctioned for this or at least ordered by the court to put the notice into the record

that they are the attorney for the attorney for the party before they proceed any

further. That will stop the proceeding for that day.

********************************************


6/15

The reason why lawyers dont write affidavits is because the lawyer cant. They

dont have first-hand knowledge. They cannot testify because they werent there.

*******************************Sometimes theyll get an affidavit signed by somebody they call a robo signer,

somebody who signs hundreds and hundreds of these affidavits for the benefits of

the lawyers that theyre not the real party in interest. Theyre not real either andthat can be proven. All you have to do is object to that affidavit because you have no

proof from this party that they actually work for such-and-such a bank or such-

and-such a government agency or whatever. You have no proof given within the

affidavit and you have no proof that this individual was there at the time of the

incident or the transaction and really does have first-hand knowledge because they

didnt express that in the affidavitand they dont. And thats how you object to

their affidavits and that proves that theyre just a robo-signer, theyre not the real

party.

***************************************

Theyll always say that we need the information from you.The burden of proof isupon the complaining party, not upon the defendant. That, again, is a violation ofdue process.

****************************************

You didnt give me enough knowledge or information about what youre talking

about to give you a responsive answer.***************************************

How can there possibly be a credit card when the law forbids the banks to lend

credit?

**************************************

Dont give them the facts that they want. Dont give them the answers to creates

facts or even the appearance of facts that they want. The burden of evidence

according to the law is upon the complaining party, not upon the defendant.

The defendant doesnt have to produce or admit to anything.

***************************

Their own paperwork is your evidence to prove their dishonest act, have a copy of

the statute, for instance, that shows what they were supposed to do which they

didnt do or a copy of the rule that shows what they were supposed to do that they

didnt donot that complicated for any of us to do.

****************************************The state of some name is the government.

We have been so misled into thinking that we live in the state of something but when

in fact the only time youre in the state of something is when youre employed as an

officer or an employee of the state government or any of its political subdivisions.

***************************************

Look it up in the states laws. Every state has laws on the procedure of how theyre

supposed to do things, even the rules of filing a complaint. They can be found and

those rules require things that are commonly left out of complaints.


7/15

***************************************The whole basis of appeal is based on whether or not due process was met and

whether the judge erred in the due process.

****************************Resident means located at, an agent of or associated with the state government when

you admit to being a resident of the state. When they make a claim that youre aresident of the state you can rebut that claim by an affidavit stating that you are not

a resident of the state.

You are not employed by the government and if they want to claim that you are all

they have to do is come up with payroll records to prove it.

Caution: The Department of Education is an agency of the State.

*****************************What land is in the State of Blank? Certainly not your private land that you bought

the land that the state bought to build state office buildings or state agencies

would be in the State of Blank, not your private land. That law does not apply to

private land and it cannot. The law is not allowed by the constitutional mandates to

extend any of its law and its activities of taxation and regulation to private property.So it cannot extend to your private land and cannot require your private land to be

recorded. But some lawyer told you it had to be because he lies and you didnt

question it, you let it happen and its recorded. If you want to get out of the private

property tax or the property tax on private propertyI should have said that more

correctlyyou have to get that deed back out of their records, out of their recording

to that land. The same thing applies to birth certificates. The only thing that the law

related to births can apply to its corporations. It cannot apply to a natural child

birth of people because the government is a corporation and the only thing a

corporation can do is deal with other corporations and it can even extend the

authority of operating as a corporation to individuals who request such an authority

from the state. And on the date that that requested corporation is authorized that

corporation is born and that birth has to be recorded in the states records as a

corporation. A natural child from natural people does not fall under that statute.

The wording does not cover people and any lawyer that will tell you that it does is

lying to you.

********************************Christian Walters (trusts) is on Mondays, Tuesdays and Saturdays at nine o'clock, EasternTime. The number is 1-712-432-0075 and the pin is 149939# (9 pm EST). Wednesdays

number is 1-724-444-7444 and the pin is 41875# (8 pm, Eastern) or tune in onWednesday at Talkshoe.com at http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?

masterId=41875&cmd=tc

Often you can find a transcript or a partial one for the weeks call at the followingwebsite:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/peoplelookingforthetruthHoward approves or disapproves all postings to this yahoo group. Send potential posting

to Howard.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/peoplelookingforthetruthhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/peoplelookingforthetruth


8/15

Note: questions to Howard are now submitted to Howard, preferably typed, to GeminiResearch rather than fielded on the call live. It would be desirable to send a couple of

bucks for mailing, copying and printing costs.

*********************Extra legal help is available from the firm, Ketchum, Dewey, Cheatham and Howe.

***********************************************************************************************************

For reference:Jersey City v. Hague, 115 Atlantic Reporter 2nd, page 8 (A 2nd )

**********

Project for all:Howard needs information on how to write a complaint for breach of the trust.Hit the libraries!

He would appreciate any research help.

*****************************************************Start

*****************************************************{01:20:15.075}[Howard] We have spent the last thirty some years of our lives researching their lawbooks, their being the government, the government, the governments of differentcountries around the world as well as the government of this country finding out howthey view the law, how they view their commerce, and trying to teach that to the peopleso the people would understand what really goes on and not just the little bit of crap thatyou were taught in school. Theres more to this life, much more to it than what wastaught in school. Thats not what everybody else is doing. There are some and there aremany more today that are starting to look into the laws and bring them out and exposethem but then theres still these people putting out some garbage. So beware of theinformation thats coming out and check it. Even check us. You can find what we talkabout if youll just bother to go look for it, you can find it in your own local law bookssomewhere and thats what I want to bring up again tonight. Last week I talked about thepreamble leading into the rules of professional conduct for lawyers. The preamble wasinteresting enough that it taught us in case we didnt already know it that the legalprofession, the entire justice system of government is a public trust. Its just part of thewhole public trust of government but it is a public trust. Its stated very emphatically thatthe lawyers are the trustees of it. This certainly fits into our ability to make lawsuitsagainst them for breach of their public trust when they act dishonestly and backs up thefact that they are the trustees, not us. These fools that are out here teaching you to go intocourt and claim that youre the administrator, youre the executor or youre the trustee,thats exactly what the system wants you to be. They want you to act as the trustee. The


9/15

system is against you. You have to put the system in its place and let the system knowthat youre the beneficiary. Youre not the trustee, they are, and they better conductthemselves in the proper manner of honesty, integrity, and good faith in their dealingsand when they dont you intend to hold them liable. Now, hopefully you do. You cant gothreatening these kinds of things and then never do anything and sit on your ass and do

nothingthat doesnt work. Thats why the systems in the shape its in today becausewe let it get there, because weve sit around and done nothing. Some of the more intenseresearch gets into things like these rules that the preamble was talking about of theconduct of professional lawyers.Heres one of them, Rule 1.1, Competence. Now, I dont know if you know it or not butcompetence strikes somebody somewhere in this world every seven seconds and whoknows any one of us could be next but competence is not just something that happens tobe there. It is attained by effort to acquire knowledge, not by sitting back and acceptingthe rhetoric, the opinion, the illusion of an opinion, created by somebody else and spewedout all over the place without any evidence to back it up. Thats not knowledge. Theresplenty of that kind of garbage around. As a matter of fact look on the internet. Youll find

about 90 percent of it is the illusion of somebody elses opinions, not knowledge, notintelligence. The best thing that could happen to these smart meters is that they by there,that they be in use because theyre operated through the computer and one day soon thecomputers are all going down and when they do the smart meters will not only stop butso will your electric bill. But unfortunately shortly after that so will the electric servicestop. So you better be prepared and have knowledge and understanding of how to get bywithout electricity. Our forefathers did it all the way up until a hundred years ago andthen it was brand new and it wasnt widespreadThis entire legal system operates on pretence. Everything is pretend. The money ispretend. Dave has mentioned this. He keeps saying there isnt any money. There certainlyis money, Dave, but its pretend money but we pretend that it is real. We pretend that itsowed back. We pretend that its been loaned out. We pretend that if it isnt paid back thatwe will foreclose so one day they will pretend to shut this money system down becausetheyre not going to lend anymore moneypretendto anybody who is not pretendingto pay it back. It has to be cancelled. Thats the pretend system. It has to be created,circulated, returned and cancelled. If that system doesnt follow through and work outthen it has to be cancelled. It will be. Were facing that issue one day, soon. Thatsprobably whatll shut the computers down.But lets talk about what a lawyers supposed to be competent doing because thats whatthe law talks about and thats very important at the moment. What I just spoke about isgoing to be very important in the near future for you so you better think about.But right now you got to think about this.

A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. This is the rule. Competentrepresentation requires the legal knowledge, skill, , and preparation necessary for therepresentation. A lawyer shall not represent a client in a legal manner in which the lawyerknows or reasonably should know that the lawyer is not competent to providerepresentation. In other words, if hes a divorce lawyer he shouldnt go into a criminalcourt and try to defend a criminal trialhes not competent to do that. Thats what theymean by this. A divorce lawyer is not competent to handle a divorce properly either sobeware. Anyway, it goes on to say, after acquiring employment on behalf of a client a


10/15

lawyer shall not thereafter delegate to another lawyer not in the lawyers firm the

responsibility of performing or completing that employment without the clients consent.

In other words, dont give your work away to somebody else unless the client says youcan do it. That has to do with competency. The Scope of representation Now, this isthe really important part. This shows where hes got any competency or not.A lawyer

shall find by the clients decisions concerning the objective of representation.Now, if thelaw says that taking my property in any fashion is a form of theft it doesnt matter if thegovernments stealing it or if an individuals stealing it or a business corporation isstealing it, if I want him to stand up in that court against this other organization, whateverit may be, and show that it is stealing my property through deception I want him to dothat. Do you think you can get one to do that? You ask him and youve set yourself upwith one hell of a good lawsuit against him because he wont do it. Hes not competent.Anyway, this is interesting: The lawyer shall abide by the clients decision concerningthe objective of representation subject to paragraph c, d, and e above, and shall consult

with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. Hes supposed to discussthe case with you and do it intelligently, not ask you what you think he ought to do and

thats what most lawyers will do. What do you want, thats their question and then helldo very little towards what you want because you didnt tell him what to do legally andhes supposed to provide you with the legal knowledge but he doesnt. Anyway, thelawyer shall abide by the clients decision whether to accept an offer of settlement of a

matter and in a criminal case the lawyer shall abide by the clients decision after

disclosure by the lawyer as to the plea to be answeredin other words, its supposed tobe discussed first. They never discuss anything with you first. They just go into court andtell you to put the plea in and if you dont follow their orders and do it theyll put the pleain for you. Its never discussed as to what it means, what the purpose of it is, how itsdone, why its done. None of thats ever taught to you. They dont want you to know sotheyre not representing you with competence. Anyway, also discussing with youwhether to waive a jury trial and whether the client should testify. Well, I can tell youabout jury trials, the dumbest damned things you might ever consider accepting. Youdont really think that 12 brain dead idiots out of this educated society are intelligentenough to make an important decision about your life, do you? They dont even know thelaw. They dont understand the law. The judge knows something about the law. Thejudge has clerks who will check on and look up things about the law if you submit stuffto the judge. He has to do it. The jury doesnt. The jurys a bunch of brain dead idiots.They will believe whatever theyre told. They believe the opinions, the illusions ofopinions that are created by lawyers and they follow them. So, if you trust a jury yourethe one that belongs in jail. You have a mental problem, you need to be put away.Anyway, if people were intelligent, they really had intelligence, not just education butactual intelligence and knowledge I wouldnt say that. I would agree that a jury trial is agood thing. I just cant agree with it, not knowing the limited ability and knowledge ofpeople today after being around and observing this for so many years. I wouldnt trustthese people as far as I could throw them to make any kind of a decision on my life.Anyway, Section B of Rule 1.2, the scope of representation says that a lawyersrepresentation of a client including representation by appointment does not constitute an

endorsement of a clients political, economic, social or moral views or activities and

cant. He is supposed to use the law not peoples wandering illusions of opinions and not


11/15

create his own wandering illusions of opinions to go against your illusionary opinionsthat you have from what youve been taught in school. But the law should be looked up.The purpose and intent behind the law should be looked up. The extent to which the lawcan be applied should be looked up. These are the kinds of things that Ralph Winterowdtalks about. The authority of certain areas of government to implement the regulations

and register them properly which are supposed to explain the purpose and application ofthe law and theyre never been done and this is on purpose. They dont want itunderstood. They dont want it in writing. They dont want everybody to have acomprehensive recognition or realization of the extent of the law. They dont want us toknow what we teach. We dug it out in their court cases. Its been covered before but theywont cover it in their statutes and they wont cover it in their rules. And when they dontput it into their rules then there has to be limitation somewhere so you have to go back tothe court case to determine the limitations. Anyway, they dont do this and this is whattheyre supposed to do, not supposed to listen to your religious opinions, your moralopinions, your social opinions, your economic opinion, your political opinion. None ofthat stuff mattersthats not relevant in court. Whats relevant in court is the law, the

purpose and intent of the law, who it applies to, the limits of it, thats whats important.But they dont do this, but they just create these illusions and stick to the illusions and tellyou that your illusion doesnt count.A lawyer may limit the objectives of therepresentation if the client consents after disclosure. That means he has to tell you he issupposed to give you the facts and the law then if you decide that you want him to dosomething or dont want him to do something then hes supposed to follow yourdirections. They dontthey just do whatever the hell they want thinking that yourestupid. Well, I think we all fit in that class. Weve all been to some kind of a school andhad some kind of an education and the purpose of it was to keep us all stupid so, yeah,were just as stupid as he is. Anyway, a lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage orassist a client in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent. What do youcall it when you hire a lawyer and he goes into court and he does not present the lawproperly and he goes along with the fraud thats been perpetrated against you ofmisapplying the law and he goes along with it? Thats certainly dishonesty, bad faith.Absence of good faith is bad faith. Anyway, but a lawyer may discuss the legalconsequences of any proposed course of conduct with the client and may counsel orassist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning, and

application of the lawjust exactly what Ive been talking about, isnt it? Its exactlywhat Ive been leading up to, to explainit explains right here in the ruleveryimportant that they determine the application and apply it and argue it for your benefit,good, bad, or indifferent for your benefit, whatever the law says and whatever thelimitation of the law is, has to be brought before the court and they dont do it. They justlet everything ride hoping youre dumb, too stupid to know any different and you willsuffer the consequences and they make a profit off of you and letting it happen becausethey charged you or they get paid by the government as appointed counsel. Anyway, thenext one is subsection e:A lawyer shall not present, participate in presenting or threatento present criminal charges or professional disciplinary actions to obtain an advantage

in a civil action. This is frequently done. If you dont do this youre going to be arrested.Either you do what I tell you or youre going to go to jail for contempt of court. Thatssort of threatening criminal charges, isnt it? Theyre not supposed to do that. The judges


12/15

arent even supposed to do that. They do it all the time though, dont they? These peopleare liable for breach of their fiduciary duty for being dishonest and not following theirown rules constantly. Were just not aware of the rules. Whatever that article is thatsomebody wrote, Im sure they brought some of this out on suing lawyers or turninglawyers in and reporting them. Next:f In representation of a client a lawyer shall not 1)

file a suit, assert a position, conduct a defense, delay a trial or take other actions onbehalf of the client when the lawyer knows or reasonable should know that such actions

would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure the other party. (It just another, here,but Im adding another party, but usually its only another party involved in the case. 2)Advance a claim or a defense that the lawyer knows is unwarranted under existing law

except that the lawyer may advance such claims or defense if it can be supported by good

faith arguments for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law.Now, youknow theyre not going to go that far. Theyre not going to do that in a court. Theyll bedisbarred for doing it and yet their rule says that they may do it. But they may not do itwhen it goes against the law unless it goes against the law for good reason because thelaw is not correct. 3)If the lawyer fails to disclose that which the lawyer is required by

law to reveal.Now, I just read part of what hes required to reveal, mainly, he is requiredto discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with the client andmay counsel or assist the client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity,scope, meaning and application of the law. Thats what his duty is. Thats not what hedoes but thats what his duty is. Anyway, subsection G. A lawyer who knows a clienthasin the course of representation has perpetrated a fraud upon a person or the tribunal

shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same and if the client refuses or isunable to do so the lawyer shall reveal the fraud to the affected person or tribunal except

when the information is protected by privileged communication. Thats G. Now, Hnow, listen to this: a lawyer who knows that a person other than the client hasperpetrated a fraud upon the tribunal shall promptly reveal the fraud to the tribunal.

What about the misapplication of the law when it does not apply to a private individual itonly applies to government property or government individuals and they try to apply it toall of us under the pretense that we are all resident agents of the government which is oneof their frauds that they perpetrate all the time? They always refer to everyone of us incourt as a resident of the state, a resident of the county, meaning an agent of thegovernment. That way we would indeed come under all the internal governmental rulesand laws and statutes if we really were an actual member, an officer or employee,member of any of the governmental organizations. But when were not the governmentsare self-regulating. The governments have all the authority in the world to make all thelaws, rules and regulations to regulate themselves and their own property and their ownpersonnel. That does not give them the authority to go outside of government andregulate private individuals and private individuals private property. Thats amisapplication of the law. The lawyers let it happen all the time. It is a fraud upon thecourt when they do this and the lawyer does not promptly reveal the fraud to the tribunalhe is guilty of breach of his fiduciary duty. Youve got a great lawsuit against him.

I: When a lawyer knows that a client expects assistance not permitted by these rules orother law the lawyer shall consult with the client regarding the relevant limitations onthe lawyers conduct. Hes supposed to tell you what he is allowed to do and what hessupposed to do for you and advise you so that you dont go off on the wrong track and do


13/15

something stupid in the court. They dont do that. Let me handle it, thats the kind of ananswer youll get out of them, let me handle it. They dont explain anything to you.

And Rule 1.3, Diligence:A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptnessin representing a client. Promptness, thats why they write motion after motion after

motion and drag the case out because they can keep charging you more money for everyminute that they put in to their work to write these motions and stretch the thing out thatthey dont do things diligently and promptlythey do things for money.

Rule 1.4, Communications:A lawyer shall keep a client reasonable informed about thestatus of the matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. Illguarantee you if you ask a lawyer to look up the court cases defining whethergovernments regulations and codes and statutes can be applied outside of governmentpersonnel and government property he would refuse to do so. Oh, yeah, they do; I dontneed to look it up. It applies to law, it applies to everybody. Well, hes right, the lawdoes apply to everybody thats in government. It does not apply to the private sector butthey create the pretense that youre in government. That young fellow out in Oregon toldthe best little example of how to get out of that that Ive seen anybody do by demandingthat they find and prove that he has payroll from government. He refused to accept theirpresumption. He rebutted it by stating that he was not a resident and he said, and if youwant to continue on this track you prove that Im a resident by coming up with payrollrecords to prove that I work for the government. Needless to say, they quickly dismissthe case.

Anyway, the next section gets into fees:Lawyers fees shall be reasonable.Now, I thinkwe all know that no lawyers fees are reasonable at all. They charge an awful lot ofmoney for their worthless activity of not doing the things that I just read to you thattheyre supposed to do. They are not reasonable. This thing goes on for a page and a half

of explaining reasonableness of the fees and its worth your reading. Im not going to gothrough it all. It is most important that you understand the concepts of what I just pointedout in those little bits of rules. Its not that big a thing. Its the scope of representation orthe authority of representation. Who knows what language they might have used tocategorize it in some other states set of rules. They probably arent all identical butbasically its talking about representation and their duty in representation, their duty to becompetent. Well, they arent. As a matter of fact Ive argued that many times in the courtor set up arguments for people many times in the court to demand that the judge find mea competent lawyer because this little moron that you just appointed just proved to methat hes not competent because he wont argue my property rights. People dont haveconstitutional rights. Thats a lawyer phrase that was created by lawyers to lead us astray

and create situations where they could go to the court and say, no, he doesnt have thatconstitutional right and the court would agree with him. Well, the court was right andagreeing with it because people dont have constitutional rights. People have propertyrights in their body and the liberty to use their body and any property that their body hasacquired for their own benefit without harming anybody else. Thats peoples rights, notconstitutional rights. Constitutional rights are established within the Constitution for thebenefit of the government. And also limitations are in the Constitution on the exercise ofauthority of government. And when they breach those limitations or breach those rights


14/15

by extending them beyond their limited authority then they have done wrong and lawyerstend to lead government agencies and people who work for government into doing thesekinds of things far beyond their limited authority all the time in order to take advantage ofthe people and figure out ways to take the peoples money and property away from themfor their benefit. Thats theft. I dont care which way you twist it or turn it. That is theft

and theft is a criminal act. But its also a civil matter if they did it and harmed you bydoing it. So, you dont need and weve tried, weve tried it for years to get criminalcharges brought through the attorney generals office. And theyre very reluctantif theyeven bother to talk to you about it, theyre very reluctant to step forward and do anythingto bring criminal charges against anybody except ones that they can take advantage of fortheir benefit, not the ones you want them to take advantage of, not the ones you wantthem to bring the charges against. So, the burden falls back upon you and I to do thisthrough the civil courts as the Supreme Court of New Jersey stated inJersey City v.Hague that you people do not have to depend upon criminal indictments. You dont haveto depend upon the ballot and a vote to change the wrongs that going on in governmentand the people that are wrong. You have the right, it said. The book said you have the

right. It didnt say you had a duty. It said you had a right to bring a civil action in the civilcourts against the governmental wrong doers for breach of their fiduciary duty. It sort ofexplains rather bluntly how we can do something. Now, this can only apply to agovernment official to the extent of the public trust. Now, there are other places likesomeone who is the trustee of a private trust who breaches that trust. He, too, has afiduciary duty, someone who you have entrusted to hold your property and they didntreturn itthats a breach of his fiduciary duty. Thats in the private sector. These samebasic laws and rules of fiduciary duty would apply even in the private sector. But mostimportant and more important than any private problems that were having, we had amajor public problem. The public government is out of control. It is breaching itsfiduciary duty. It is stealing our private property from us under all kinds of false pretensesin this application of the law constantly and stealing from us. Now it is up to us to dosomething about it. Im going to spend a little bit of time this week, if I get time, to getoff track of a couple other things that Ive been working on, and go look, do a little bit ofresearch on the term, civil. I think its very important that we look this up because theresan awful lot of people pushing the idea of civil rights cases, Title 42, 1983 cases. Ivedone some of them in the past. Ive read a bunch that were done. Ive looked into a bunchthat were done that never got reported because they were dismissed and most of the onesthat I got involved with got dismissed because its the wrong action. If it applies toanything it only applies to the minority which happens to be government. People ingovernment are the minority. Thats the only ones it applies to. They have a right to suewhen government mistreats them. Thats fine for them but for us, the private sector outhere, thats what this breach of fiduciary duty is really all about Im sure. We are notentitled to civil rights. We ask for benefits unfortunately and what Dave was readingsomething there from Mr. Winterowd, what you were just reading of his pretty direct theway he was laying it out according to the way the law actually applies and it was a goodexample for you to look into of how its misapplied because Mr. Winterowd does a lot ofstudy in this area and hes one of the very few in the country that does other than us andmaybe one or two others that are actually looking at the law and pointing out the specificsof it of how its applied. Its misapplied by these lawyers and thats where youve got a


15/15

right to bring these actions against these people. Study Mr. Winterowds stuff, study thestuff that we put out, study this stuff out of code books. Look in your own state codeunder state lawyers. Look in the Federal Code under federal lawyers and youll find thatthis set of rules of conduct for lawyers is in every one of the code books and you want toapply the code from the area where this lawyer operates. You dont want to apply the

federal code in Californiait doesnt apply except in the federal courts and the lawyersthat perform in the federal courts out there in California. If its a California court wherethe lawyer is performing and hes not doing his job right youve got to use the Californiarules of conduct for lawyers, not the federal. If youre not in California and youre inNevada, youre in Florida, youre in Michigan, youre in Maine, youve got to look upthe laws in those states and apply them. I guarantee they read very close, very similar,almost perfectly identical the way they read. The rules are basically the same. Thewording might change slightly. The reason you got to look it up in your area whereyoure going to use is because thats what they look at. They look at their own rule bookand if you didnt use the same words that they used in their rule book and you used adifferent word theyll throw the whole case out. And if you bring it under civil rights

theyll probably throw the whole case out because theyll say that youre a resident andyou come under all these laws and you have no right to object to the laws being appliedto you because youre a resident which is why you have to rebut the presumption thatyoure a resident and you have to rebut it with an affidavit. You cant just to into courtand say it. You got to put in writing; you got to have it notarized or at least two or threepeople. Three is better, two is good enough. Ive talked to some people around thecountry who have said that they wouldnt trust too many people they know to be awitness because they might sign something but then they wouldnt show up later andtestify to what they signed as a witness. They couldnt be trusted. I said, its a damnedshame that this country is that way that people do withdraw. They dont want to beactive. They want to hide, withdraw from the scene and have nothing to do with it and thereason is because they dont trust you. They might not come right out and tell you thatbut they dont trust it, theyre afraid of it. It may backfire on them.

2013 jan3 howard griswold conference call

Documents